We as a country have to work to control the output, availability, possession and use of firearms by changing laws, amending the constitution which gave these rights hundreds of years ago when they were not't [sic] faced with the problems we are today which are escalating on a daily basis. [More]
"The constitution which gave"...? Of course rights come from the state! Why, who doesn't know that?
Besides, we don't want to
eliminate guns. We just want to control their availability and possession. Meaning they're available and possessed by "
Only Ones"-- like
me!
And just so you understand
what he really means when he says "control":
If guns were not accessible, people Wouldn't be getting shot.......right!? It's guns that are in the hands of people. It's people that pull the trigger with the intent to cause bodily harm or death. Take guns OUT of the equation and the rest is obvious....
We have our share of anti-gun zealots over at Examiner.com. Typically, I don't link to them, because why drive traffic their way and reward them for their dangerous foolishness?
But this guy deserves special pointing out. Why? Per
his bio:
Mark has been a police officer and investigator for 30 years. His experience, skills and training have made him well respected in his field.
Which probably explains why he considers the Supreme Court decision that police are required to advise suspects of their rights against self-incrimination "
infamous." What a hassle. But there are ways
around that...
Understand we write out own bio statements. So the assessment "well respected" is
his opinion of how he is perceived. (Why do I suddenly hear
The Kinks?)
I don't respect you, pally. I find your attitudes ignorant, elitist and despicable. I don't think you're fit to be in the same country with
these guys.